The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has published its Worst Governors list (.pdf). The 18 Governors are divided into three grades of awfulness, their designations based on: corruption, transparency, partisan politics, pressuring public officials, cronyism, self-enrichment, scandal, and mismanagement.

The six worst governors are:

Nathan Deal (R-GA)

Paul LePage (R-ME)

Robert McDonnell (R-VA)

Rick Perry (R-TX)

Rick Scott (R-FL)

Scott Walker (R-WI)

The governors of Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and North Carolina occupy the middle ring of failure.

Rounding out the list are governors from Iowa, New York, Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

The list skews heavily Republican, and only two Democrats are included.

What's the Deal?

Quote:

The Georgian Governor tops the list for:
(1) using his gubernatorial campaign to benefit his daughter-in-law;
(2) using his office to benefit a business partner;
(3) using his office to benefit a top donor;
(4) arranging a taxpayer-funded job for a political foe;
and (5) obstructing ethics investigations into his business dealings.

LePage

Quote:

The Tea Party Mainer makes the list because of:
(1) the pervasiveness and influence of lobbyists in his administration;
(2) personnel problems and retaliation against state employees;
(3) improperly bullying state Department of Labor employees;
(4) nepotism;
(5) reducing government transparency;
(6) repeatedly making rude, inappropriate, and offensive comments;
and (7) advocating for new voter identification restrictions.

What about Bob?

Quote:

The Head of the Old Dominian was included for:
(1) investigations into whether he improperly accepted gifts in exchange for official action;
(2) using his position to enrich himself and his family members;
(3) awarding state money to a professional sports team after receiving
gifts and campaign contributions;
(4) failing to report his wife’s paid position as a consultant on his statement of economic interests;
and (5) signing a controversial voter ID bill.

The Problem with Perry

Quote:

His mess with Texas includes:
(1) promotion of a political culture rife with cronyism and pay-to-play appointments;
(2) the pervasiveness and influence of revolving-door lobbyists in his
administration;
(3) I forgot the third one;
(4) abusing his position to benefit his family;
(5) simultaneous collection of a state government salary and state retirement pension;
(6) financial disclosure reporting violations;
(7) repeated flouting of transparency standards and blocking of public disclosure;
(8.) misuse of state resources for his presidential campaign;
(9) advocacy for voter identification restrictions;
and (10) killing a measure that would have required politically active nonprofits to disclose their donors.

Florida, naturally

Quote:

Scott is involved in:
(1) using his office to benefit his company;
(2) using his office to promote donors’ interests;
(3) appointing campaign contributors to official positions;
(4) privatizing a state-run insurance company to benefit his donors;
(5) concealing e-mail he had promised to make public;
and (6) accusations of voter disenfranchisement.

Recall Walker?

Quote:

The Wisconsin Governor's inclusion stems from:
(1) using his office to promote donors’
interests;
(2) illegally using state troopers to track down his political opponents;
(3) an investigation into illegal activity by his aides;
(4) diverting money from a nationwide mortgage settlement;
(5) an investigation into the state economic development corporation he chairs;
(6) dismissing a political appointee for signing the recall petition against him;
and (7) advocating for new voter identification restrictions.

Also, if you think CREW has a partisan bent just because 88% of this list is Republican, then there's nothing that can be done for you.

Also, if you think CREW has a partisan bent just because 88% of this list is Republican, then there's nothing that can be done for you.

I don't think CREW has a partisan bent just because 88% of this list is Republican.

I think it has a partisan bent because it was (a) founded by DEMOCRAT activists, (b) disproportionately targets Republicans and (c) contributed about eight times as much to the Democratic party as they did to the Republican party.

Founded: Incorporated May 13, 2002 in Delaware by Democrat activists Louis Mayberg, Mark Penn, and Daniel Berger through a hired Registered Agent company, The Corporation Trust Company. CREW has claimed that attorney Norm Eisen was also a co-founder, but his name does not appear on any founding document or any Form 990. The first donation was a $25,000 grant from the Tides Foundation, the only income in 2002.

CREW’s ultimate purpose is to use “the rule of law to bring about constructive social change” in a manner the organization likens to the 1960s civil rights movement. The "social change" sought by CREW is the transformation of America into a nation that more fully embraces leftist values and policies. Toward this end, CREW strives to discredit conservatives and Republicans it deems vulnerable to attack, with the objective of decreasing their numbers in political offices nationwide. Thus the overwhelming majority of the public officials targeted by CREW are Republicans. In September 2006, the organization issued a 241-page report -- titled "Beyond [Tom] Delay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” -- which named 17 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The report further listed 5 “Dishonorable Mentions” -- 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat. A similar disproportion has marked the political contributions made by CREW's Board members and staffers in recent years. Between 1995 and 2004, those individuals contributed $125,245 to Democrats and $16,013 to Republicans.

Citing the existence of conservative legal advocacy groups like Judicial Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center, CREW says: “Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the progressive arena.” While acknowledging that there are numerous leftist groups that focus on research and legislation, CREW states that such organizations “do not use litigation to target outrageous conduct.” This is the niche that CREW has carved out for itself.

(Bolding mine to point out the relevant parts).

So to answer your question...that's the deal.

But then again any group that publish a list and skews so heavily to one side or another is almost always going to be inclining to the opposite.

Most "non-partisan" groups are non-partisan in name only. Political people pretty much always have an affiliation towards certain ideals/values and over time that will color and shape the actions of said groups whether Democrat or Republican.
And a group set up by activists of either party is not going to be non-partisan.

I agree that their funding ratio is significant. I also agree that the "non-partisan" designation should not be simply accepted.

But, I have no problems with their findings whatsoever. Their picks for the six worst governors remain reasonable. Republican governors are so much more corrupt than their Democratic counterparts, on average.

Quote:
His mess with Texas includes:
(1) promotion of a political culture rife with cronyism and pay-to-play appointments;
(2) the pervasiveness and influence of revolving-door lobbyists in his
administration;
(3) I forgot the third one;
(4) abusing his position to benefit his family;
(5) simultaneous collection of a state government salary and state retirement pension;
(6) financial disclosure reporting violations;
(7) repeated flouting of transparency standards and blocking of public disclosure;
(8.) misuse of state resources for his presidential campaign;
(9) advocacy for voter identification restrictions;
and (10) killing a measure that would have required politically active nonprofits to disclose their donors.

This seems unfair in an under-appreciative way.

At no point does CREW give the man credit for reintroducing the idea of secession into the national discussion for the first time in a century and a half. This is an achievement no one else has managed since the unpleasantness of the century before last.

Quote:

Rounding out the list are governors from Iowa...

This is unreasonable. The Boy Governor For Life has only done one decent thing in his entire professional life. He blocked an even farther right winger in the last election. Now, he is the only gov who has a personal say on who does and doesn't get to grant a woman an abortion. I am personally baffled on whether that balances the declaration of Christianity the state religion, the requirement of super-special voter IDs, or the closing of all but one abortion clinic per state.